Originally posted by dj2beckerThat depends upon what you mean by uniformatism. Slight variance (even if only from "measurement error" ) is fine. The problem is these literalists need an extraordinary amount of it. Often times, they need so much that the variation has grossly counterfactual implications for other conditions on Earth (vastly accelerated decay rates - - -> Earth melting). Of course, if one is free to play with every law in physics (and perhaps make up a few more to boot) then one can harmonize the system however they please.
And you think that uniformitarianism will stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny?
Originally posted by dj2beckerWe have a good idea of what they were like due to the measurements that have been done. For example, we know that oxygen was not present in the atmosphere (in any large concentrations - there may have been a few atoms about though). We can look at the iron banded formations from ~2bya. Any rocks older than that contain a mixture of oxidised and reduced iron, suggesting that oxygen was limiting for the reaction. If we found a rock which was, say, 3 byo which was different, and showed signs of excess iron in the environment then, if it could not be understood as only local conditions, that would substantially revise our understanding of early earth. Our "anoxic" earth would need to undergo revision.
How do you faslify conditions which supposedly existed 4,000,000,000 years ago?
So yes, abiogenic theory IS testable.
Originally posted by telerionThis is the big point, dj, and clearly made.
That depends upon what you mean by uniformatism. Slight variance (even if only from "measurement error" ) is fine. The problem is these literalists need an extraordinary amount of it. Often times, they need so much that the variation has grossly counterfactual implications for other conditions on Earth (vastly accelerated decay rates - - -> Earth melting ...[text shortened]... and perhaps make up a few more to boot) then one can harmonize the system however they please.
In order for evolution to be false requires the disbelief in certain constants which we accept
as constant.
Of course we can't know if the speed of light slowed down 1000 years ago, but that level
of skepticism isn't even rational in any context, much less a scientific one.
For example, do you accept that all dogs can't fly? Do you feel this is a fact? I'm sure you do.
But, have you seen every dog on the planet currently? How do you know there isn't one
somewhere that can fly? How do you know that 16th-century reports of a flying dog
really aren't true?
You (ought to) reject them because they fly in the face of reason. If you don't reject them, then
the level of skepticism you entertain would require you to disbelieve that, if you drop a ball, it has
a chance of falling upward, because the rules of gravity just might change. Such a level of skepticism
doesn't merit any credence and certainly isn't scientific.
Similarly, the rejection of some constants -- the speed of light, the effect of mass bodies on other
mass bodies, radioactive isotope decay and the like -- is equally nonsensical.
So, if you want to reject that the speed of light is in fact constant, then go for it, but that same
philosophical framework requires you to reject all observation as having scientific merit.
As a consequence, even evidence that might be useful for proving aspects of religion -- such
as source evidence for documents in the NT, or archeological evidence in 1st-century Jerusalem --
must be treated with the same skepticism and be disbelieved.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou know, I made this self same point to him (in a less eloquent manner) about parsimony yesterday....
This is the big point, dj, and clearly made.
In order for evolution to be false requires the disbelief in certain constants which we accept
as constant.
Of course we can't know if the speed of light slowed down 1000 years ago, but that level
of skepticism isn't even rational in any context, much less a scientific one.
For example, do you ac ...[text shortened]... y Jerusalem --
must be treated with the same skepticism and be disbelieved.
Nemesio
Thinking about Nemesio's posts and my own I see two possible scenarios to explain current data;
1) Biological systems have remained static, with all species or "kinds" remaining immutable. The laws of physics and chemistry have varied stochastically and by violently over a relatively short past.
2) Biological systems have changed dynamically, and slowly, within an evironment where the laws of physics and chemistry have not changed, or have changed only slightly during that time.
Basically, it comes down to one of those two. The scientific evidence as stands favours scenario 2. Why do creationists, as a specific group, favour the former, even when it is contrary to all evidence?
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe trouble you face is the enviroment is ever changing, the code is
Ah, but here's the thing - the code can become good simply because all bad codes have been selected against over time. And by time we mean a LOT of time. 4,000,000,000 years. Nearly one and a half million million days! Some bacteria, and bacteria were on the planet (exclusively) for 2 billion years, have a generation time of 8 minutes! Can you imag ...[text shortened]... TVs are not[/i], a designer is not necessary! Only time, genetic variation, and probability.
ever changing, and more times than not if a bad change occurs it is
dead ended, life would not continure. The fact that you think these
things just happen speaks to more to your faith than anything else.
Life being self-replicating doesn't speak to the starting point, it only
speaks to what is here now, and I agree with you that changes are
occuring now and small changes within established systems are a
reality. Your claims you know what the conditions of the planet was in
are strickly matters of belief, you assume certain things because you
think you can read the rocks and gleen from the data you get the
status of the universe X years ago. You are a person of faith even if
you don't want to admit it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're right Kelly, but it's faith based on a completely different framework to yours. Which I guess brings us back and back and back again to the same old problem - the arguments we all make, and the counter-arguments we then make, are built from different frameworks and so have us arguing past each other.
The trouble you face is the enviroment is ever changing, the code is
ever changing, and more times than not if a bad change occurs it is
dead ended, life would not continure. The fact that you think these
things just happen speaks to more to your faith than anything else.
Life being self-replicating doesn't speak to the starting point, it only
speaks t ...[text shortened]... he universe X years ago. You are a person of faith even if
you don't want to admit it.
Kelly
It's not an argument anyone can win.
Not Xanthos or Scottish or you or me.
And, if that was all that mattered, then you'd have to say 'who cares?'
But of course, the argument from some of the fundamentalist persuasion has been twisted in an attempt to make it seem that we're all using the same framework, and that the Creationist/ID arguments have as much validity as the Scientific ones.
They do, but not in the same context.
This is the major problem I have and the one that caused me to start the post all those months ago.
I don't agree with a religious viewpoint, much as you don't agree with mine. And I'm happy to live in a world where we have different opinions - in fact, I prefer such a world.
But my concern is when we make, or try to make, all opinions suit all situations.
Creationsim and Intelligent Design are not scientific.
They are religious.
Nothing wrong with that.
But that's the way they should remain.
For reference, here's the post you replied to.
Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, but here's the thing - the code can become good simply because all bad codes have been selected against over time. And by time we mean a LOT of time. 4,000,000,000 years. Nearly one and a half million million days! Some bacteria, and bacteria were on the planet (exclusively) for 2 billion years, have a generation time of 8 minutes! Can you imag ...[text shortened]... TVs are not, a designer is not necessary! Only time, genetic variation, and probability.
Now your reply and my comments:
The trouble you face is the enviroment is ever changing, the code is
ever changing, and more times than not if a bad change occurs it is
dead ended, life would not continure.
Yes! Yes! Yes! That's called Evolution. Did you read the post you replied to? Dead-ended changes, as you have said, do not get propagated.
The fact that you think these
things just happen speaks to more to your faith than anything else.
Life being self-replicating doesn't speak to the starting point, it only
speaks to what is here now, and I agree with you that changes are
occuring now and small changes within established systems are a
reality.
Other people have asked where you think the barrier is that stops small changes accumulating into bad ones. Can you answer them please?
Your claims you know what the conditions of the planet was in
are strickly matters of belief, you assume certain things because you
think you can read the rocks and gleen from the data you get the
status of the universe X years ago. You are a person of faith even if
you don't want to admit it.
And this again is dealt with just a few posts up the thread. It's amazing how short your memory is. I'm not going to rephrase it because I don't have the time. Scroll the screen up a bit and read what has been written.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by amannionThe frame work may be different, but the result is the same, faith and beliefs are the bottom line. You want to say one frame work is better than another, I’d even agree with you, but because it is faith and belief and not what we call facts and reality, the possibility of being wrong exists. Assumptions are made and counted upon, and if they are wrong, the whole belief system can be faulty because of the poor foundation.
You're right Kelly, but it's faith based on a completely different framework to yours. Which I guess brings us back and back and back again to the same old problem - the arguments we all make, and the counter-arguments we then make, are built from different frameworks and so have us arguing past each other.
It's not an argument anyone can win.
Not Xanthos ...[text shortened]... They are religious.
Nothing wrong with that.
But that's the way they should remain.
I do not attempt to bring my religion into this discussion that is done by everyone else. When questioned about my beliefs I admit what I have is faith based, and that is used as a support for the declaration of another’s belief system, I suppose they feel if what I believe is some how proven wrong what they believe is stronger one way or another. I do not attempt to make that claim either, if I prove for example that abiogenesis is in error that does not automatically mean the creation story is accurate, it doesn’t work that way. Each belief or claim must stand or fall on its own, not because of what the competing ideas around it have to say, they all can be wrong.
If you want to assume that your views because you place the label scientific on them makes them truer than any other belief that argument is another discussion all together. Truth does not depend on human acceptance it simply is what it is. You have admitted that you agree faith and belief are used in your views on evolution and other topics, the thing that makes it more palatable for you is the claim it is a different frame work, it is still faith at work, beliefs in what you think is true.
I’m a creationist as I have admitted before and my beliefs are faith based, I do look at the universe and see what I believe fits the creation story I accept, so what I have isn’t a blind faith as some suggest. I’ll let those that take the label ID upon themselves to defend that position on if it is ‘science’ or not. I don’t see it as thing other than another group of people making claims on the universe as they see and understand it.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinYes! Yes! Yes! That's called Evolution. Did you read the post you replied to? Dead-ended changes, as you have said, do not get propagated.[/b]
For reference, here's the post you replied to.
[b]Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, but here's the thing - the code can become good simply because all bad codes have been selected against over time. And by time we mean a LOT of time. 4,000,000,000 years. Nearly one and a half million million days! Some bacteria, and bacteria were on the planet (excl ave the time. Scroll the screen up a bit and read what has been written.
--- Penguin.
Yes, your point? Mine is that if we were to accept the starting point as being in an environment that is extremely harsh, and from whatever caused life to appear where there was none before, any misstep at that point ends it all. The opportunity to lose it all is much greater at the earliest point where life started developed, in addition Scott is suggesting that the environment under went massive changes along the lines that not only allowed life to emerge from non-living material, but changed in such a way at just the right times to keep it going too. The absence of oxygen until it was required and so on, the grand set of fortunate circumstances which cause one of the most complex codes ever written or put together if there wasn’t an author to it, DNA. I say this is as much a statement of faith as I look at the universe around me as any other.
Other people have asked where you think the barrier is that stops small changes accumulating into bad ones. Can you answer them please?[/b]
I do not see anything to suggest there isn't a barrier, I do see small changes within species but we start with bacteria and we end with bacteria. Do you see any creature changing to that degree? If you are going to submit to me that there isn't a barrier that life will and can change go beyond its current forms in such a dramatic fashion give me an example that isn't another statement of faith such as this fossil was once related to that creature, since that is nothing but speculation as well.
Kelly
The fundamental crux of KJ's argument rests upon an equivocation. The word 'faith' when it has been used to describe the Creationist position means something like "belief in a proposition that is independent of and not contingent upon all observation." That Jesus created the world in 6 days with all the current "kinds" (nebulous term) represented is to KJ a fundamental truth that must be held no matter what we currently observe about the world. If empirical data does not seem to support this truth then the empirical data be reinterpreted to conform it to the proposition. If our current understanding of nature and its processes cannot account for the occurence of a worldwide flood about 4000 years ago, then something about our understanding must be in error. Even if KJ cannot offer a process that could harmonize his fundamental truth with observation, he is sure of its veracity nonetheless. This is the Creationist "faith."
"Faith" as it is used by KJ to describe scientific views really means " belief in a proposition based upon the convergence of a large body of theory and a wide sample of independent observations." Unlike, Creationist faith, this sort of "faith" (better labeled 'inference'😉 is not independent of observation but rather dependent (even contingent) upon what can be measured empirically. In order of importance, the former places the proposition before the evidence, while the latter makes the proposition a function of the evidence.
So when a scientist says, "The Earth had X characteristic in the past," this essentially means "Everything we have learned about physical processes from many years of observing, testing, and cataloguing natural phenomena is consistent with the Earth having characteristic X in the past."
When a Creationist says, "Lions, tigers, and bears were originally vegetarians," this essentially means "Despite everything we have learned about physical processes from many years of observing, testing, and cataloguing natural phenomena, lions, tigers, and bears were originally strict vegetarians."
This key difference between Creationist faith and scientific "faith" goes directly to the heart of the scientific method and thus the two should not be used interchangeably.
Originally posted by KellyJayThe trouble you face is the enviroment is ever changing,
The trouble you face is the enviroment is ever changing, the code is
ever changing, and more times than not if a bad change occurs it is
dead ended, life would not continure. The fact that you think these
things just happen speaks to more to your faith than anything else.
Life being self-replicating doesn't speak to the starting point, it only
speaks t ...[text shortened]... he universe X years ago. You are a person of faith even if
you don't want to admit it.
Kelly
Yes, but within relatively defined limits. These limits are imposed by physics and chemistry. The planet never records surface temperatures of a million C, for example.
the code is ever changing, and more times than not if a bad change occurs it isdead ended, life would not continure.
Life of one single individual - but not the entire gene pool.
The fact that you think these things just happen speaks to more to your faith than anything else.
Are you attempting to deny that genetic change is random? Perhaps you are right; perhaps God deigns for people to have genetic disease.
Your claims you know what the conditions of the planet was in
are strickly matters of belief, you assume certain things because you
think you can read the rocks and gleen from the data you get the
status of the universe X years ago. You are a person of faith even if
you don't want to admit it.
Any "faith" I have is based on evidence - yours is based on opinion. There is no more evidence for your viewpoint than there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pink Flying Kittens, Unicorns, Santa or the Giant Celestial Chicken. My "faith" is based on physics, chemistry and evidence.
This is an important point. I would not let a surgeon operate on me unless he had X-rays and NMR scans, unless he was sure, based on evidence, of what was wrong with me and how to fix it. In your universe, however, it is possible that between the X-ray being taken and visualised that you leg might have healed, even if it was only five minutes. Your surgeons medical training would mean nothing, because human anatomy could change overnight. When you refuse to base your universe on physical, tangible evidence the wheels fall off and everything becomes a mere mystery again. This is why my worldview, based on reality, is used to send people into space, and yours is not.